It was shot Panavision - 2.40 to 1 This is why the VHS is worthless - pan and scan
shareThat's really surprising, for I'm a rabid letterbox fan who can usually spot a cropped VHS job, and I didn't detect much of that. And, hey, this came out on tape in 1983, and I didn't know they did pan-and-scan this early.
shareIt was filmed 35mm hardmatted 1,85:1.
You can't handle it. Get me Bruce Lee!
Ehh... Bruce Lee is dead.
Then get his brother!!!
No way. it is not 1.85.1. The picture looks zoomed in another way of telling that the film was shot anamoprhic.
shareThe film was shot Flat - 1.85:1 with the full 1.33:1 negative exposed.
This is proven by a number of things:
1) The definitive book on Frankenheimer, by Charles Champlin says so.
2) The video is an open matte transfer at 1.33:1. There is clearly no information missing on the sides, but there is a huge amount of dead headroom, and dead space at the bottom of the frame.
3) The burned-in subtitles on the VHS are extremely high up in the frame. They're in the right place for matted projection in theaters.
4) If you play the VHS zoomed in on a 16:9 TV, you'll get the original framing, as I did. The subtitles are in exactly the right place now, and the framing always looks perfect.
5) You can test this for yourself with the following YouTube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwFSK9NueNg&NR=1
Play it cropped on your computer, everything looks correct at 16:9 or 1.85
6) All of Frankenheimer's films from 1980-1996 were flat.
Interesting theories everybody. What Luckard says makes a lot of sense. I tried watching cropped at 16:9 and 1.85:1 but I noticed that the tops of peoples heads were often cut off; this was naturally more noticeable at 1.85:1. I had better luck watching at at 16:10. There's small bars on the sides watching it on my 16:9 monitor, but heads aren't chopped (at least not until they are supposed to be).
That's my two-cents... want change?